Capitalism =Greed

That 43% is a fallacy. In a recent report, due to deductions, and offshore accounts, many ceo's and corporate execs pay only 16%. Warren Buffet complains that he pays less tax percentage than his secretary does.

How old is the poster of this thread?

Have you considered trying to become one of the rich?

Have you considered trying to start your own business?

What concern is it of yours or mine how the rich spend their money.... frankly, it is none of our business. They earned it..let them spend it. That's all I expect, I should do likewise.

Capitalism is good, it took my parents from dirt poor farms in the depression to a comfortable lifestyle in retirement.

Capitalism helped me find a better paying job this past spring.. even in this economy. I worked hard for it and was rewarded...capitalism at work.

I am still trying to establish my small farm as a fledgling business... raising and selling goats, chickens, and natural grown produce... not to feed the world, but feed the ones that will pay me for it... capitalism.

If you are concerned with feeding the world...teach the world to grow food...and WE have on mission trips to Honduras and in mentoring young neophyte farmers and gardeners in our area. Put our tomatoes where our mouths are.

But it is hard to get up at 4:30am-5am and feed animals before work at 7am, then come home and feed and water them again... work our market gardens, build pens and fences for our livestock, and then market and sell them.

Damn right I want money for my efforts, ...that's capitalism.

What's my reward? Lands, investments, coastal property, a college education for my daughter... what's wrong with that?

Why should I support someone that is not motivated, is satisfied with their lifestyle but doesn't want to invest in a 16 hour day to work and go to night school or take advantage of reduced or free classes through the local community colleges.

I remember back about 1998, I worked a full time job, had 3 part time juobs and one of my friends laughed and asked sarcastically...What are you gonna do with all that money?

Invested in land and bought a place at the coast....

Capitalism. Work hard, make money.

Capitalism. Work smarter, not harder and make money.

Socialism/Communism, work hard or not, make the same yesterday and everyday.

Oh, by the way...I hear folks talk about how good all these other countries have it and how their life sucks...

Last I heard, you can still buy tickets to Europe and China. Bon voyage...

Thats the fallacy of capitalism....that those who work hard are rewarded. Thats assuming that all those without jobs (now 20% of the populace) are those who just dont want to work hard. I know plenty of people who worked hard all their lives, and now their retirement has been stripped from them by the games of bank investors. Socialism is not about everyone getting paid the same. Its about social safety nets that allow everyone to have a chance. capitalism, here, is about corporations using lobbyists to tip the game in their favor.

Further, why should I help pay for those down on their luck, or in desperate situations? Because that brings up society for all of us. It reduces random crime, FOR ME, it produces more people who are productive members of society, for me, it makes society function better, for me and my kids.

Ask Citibank what they think about capitalism...

After all, this secret memo, which embarrassed them no end when it went online, espoused their views in 2006, and the only "risk" that they could ascertain then was this:
Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This
thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would
likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will
probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share
of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was – one
person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back
against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the
rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation (on the rich or indirectly
though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in
a push-back on globalization – either anti-immigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this
happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a
close eye on developments.

SOURCE:

www.scribd.com...

Citibank 2010 earnings first quarter $4.4 billion. Highest since 2007.

They aren't hurting at all in this economy.

reply to post by pexx421


This is because you dont truly have a free market and most wealth is syphoned to the top by the coercive violence of the state in the form of involuntary taxes , inflation and fees.

The state ALWAYS throughout history becomes infested with villians and theives who use the monopolistic violence of the state to extract their pounds of flesh from the general public. How does it make sense to combat the effects of their feeding by giving them still MORE power to pillage in the form of the enhanced socialist state, with the power to tax us all into oblivion with unsustainable social programs and exponential beureacracy?

No, no. The current problems that have been festering for a hundred years and are finally metastisizing in a way that could truly be spectacular and apocalyptic if we dont take our foot OFF the gas and change our current course. You do not fight fire with gasoline. And these problems are endemic of MORE government intervention, MORE coercive intrusion, MORE taxes and reglations, and NOT the other way around.

People used to know NOT to trust the STATE. The STATE is NOT your FRIEND.

Allow man to be free of centralized planning, to rule his own affairs without having to play ball in a psychopathic system that never lacks for brutality and hunger...and watch his true, glorious potential to emerge.

I know NOT to trust the state, because at this point the state is not us. The point of socialism is that the state is truly supposed to be the people. The only reason they have to continue to increase taxes is because of the massive cost of the military industrial complex, which is set up solely to funnel profit to arms manufacturers and natural resources to corporations. If we reduced our standing army, and ceased wars in foreign countries for profit, then our taxes could do what they are supposed to. Support socially stabilizing bodies, such as education, healthcare, police, infrastructure, and social safety nets. In these ways we all profit from our taxes, rather than our current system where only the massively rich or the extremely poor profit.

And just so you know...these problems are NOT because of MORE government intervention, regulation, so on and so on as you espouse. These problems are due to INEFFECTIVE government, and massive corruption.

reply to post by pexx421


But govenment is *always* rendered ineffectual and self serving because of its true nature - it is the monopoly of the use of force in a geographical region. Thus every high functioning psychopath, which represent about 1% of the population, will flock to the system that allows them to use force with impunity...because theyre psychos and they will use violence to achive their ends. Where better to set up shop than in the one position that allows them to initiate force with impunity. Thus corruption and violence are inevitable in any state system over time, regardless of the initial stated intentions. (which are often bogus anyways)

So we need to find an alternative to the state if we really want to solve our problems.

As Thomas Jefferson said....the government needs a revolution every 20 years or so to keep it honest... Guess we're a bit overdue, eh?

Originally posted by pexx421
That 43% is a fallacy. In a recent report, due to deductions, and offshore accounts, many ceo's and corporate execs pay only 16%. Warren Buffet complains that he pays less tax percentage than his secretary does.

So old Warren pulls in let’s say 5 billion and he pays less than the 30 to 40 percent most likely his personal secretary pays...we can go with 25%. That means he pays 1.25 BILLION. My god! So just how much should one person pay to be an American…hehe

Also since the upper 20% pays about 95% of all personal taxes I see a lot more fallacy in the old “off shore accounts” statement, which BTW is extremely hard to do after 911. You know that whole terrorist funding thing…not that easy for anyone to hide money these days.

Why not complain about the 50% that don't pay federal taxes at all..hehe Maybe if they actually do better than they could finally pay their fair share too since they are also an American.

Lastly...it is not about paying more, or forcing the rich to pay more, it is about spending fewer taxes on bull crap. It’s like a crazy wife maxing out your CCs and complaining you’re not giving her enough to spend.

Originally posted by pexx421
Further, why should I help pay for those down on their luck, or in desperate situations? Because that brings up society for all of us. It reduces random crime, FOR ME, it produces more people who are productive members of society, for me, it makes society function better, for me and my kids.

I think the question is why should you be FORCED to pay.....

Originally posted by pexx421
Thats the fallacy of capitalism....that those who work hard are rewarded. Thats assuming that all those without jobs (now 20% of the populace) are those who just dont want to work hard. I know plenty of people who worked hard all their lives, and now their retirement has been stripped from them by the games of bank investors. Socialism is not about everyone getting paid the same. Its about social safety nets that allow everyone to have a chance. capitalism, here, is about corporations using lobbyists to tip the game in their favor.

I think you are mixing capitalism with corporatism. Capitalism is where I grow apples and sell for the best price that anyone would be willing to pay. Corporatism is where large corporations mix with governments for their own agendas and this is more like a fascist state, and I think we all agree that a fascist state is very bad.

But we do not need socialism to prevent a fascist state, and there are good facts out there that provide data that socialism only works in smaller populations where a larger percentage of that population is workers. Socialism in America would create a welfare country totally under control by the state…very scary. Also economic growth would not only stop but go backwards, also very scary.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
This is obviously false, as the example of the USSR, DPRK, Cuba and other 'socialist' states demonstrates. Were the capitalist system to collapse, you can bet that the government would simply endorse and adopt another economic system.

Socialism is an economic system, and with it we don't need government. These systems only survive because we allow them to.
We don't need politics, we need the resources to make the world a better place for us all, not just the privileged few who coerce and exploit labour.

Hence the quotes. Good luck getting everybody to share everything without a government or other coercive force.

There are no socialist states. Please re-read what I said and take in mind that the definition of Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production'. Those countries you speak of are not examples of Socialism, in fact they are as far from it as you can get.

The ONLY place socialism has ever happened in modern history was in Spain in the 1930's when the workers collectivized industry, and farms, and increased production by 20%, whilst at the same time fighting off Hitlers military and Luftwaffe that was bombing their cities.

False. The Encyclopedia Britannica states this:

System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.

Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal.

The USSR may not have been the 'desirable' kind of socialism, but it was still socialist.

The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 came closer to realizing the ideal of the free stateless society on a vast scale than any other revolution in history, including the aborted Russian Revolution of 1917.(1) In fact, they were two very different kinds of revolution. The Spanish Revolution is an example of a libertarian social revolution where genuine workers' self-management was successfully tried. It represents a way of organizing society that is increasingly important today. The Bolshevik Revolution, by contrast, was controlled by an elite party and was a political revolution. It set the doleful pattern for the authoritarian state capitalist revolutions in Eastern Europe, Asia (China, Korea, Vietnam), and Latin America (Cuba).

www.efn.org...

And it turned out so well, didn't it?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The first part of my post was a joke, but once again who decides what is need or desired? Also, are you suggesting rich people and their greed is what is preventing better infrastructure? Or are you saying that they should be the ones to pay for it instead of buy rich crap?

Well in Spain the workers decided because the workers know what they want. That is freedom.

Countries fail because that is how capitalism works. There will always be someone on the bottom, people and countries. There is no such thing as everyone being successful, capitalism as an economic system is a pyramid scheme with the capitalists at the top. It has nothing to do with populations, as we have the technology to feed the worlds population already.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

www.worldsocialism.org...

We fail to produce enough because we only produce enough to make profit, not satisfy the needs of the people.

Labour is wasted making stuff that is only needed to make 'profit', when there are more important uses for labour such as producing needed resources like food. In Spain, after they collectivized the farms, they concentrated on feeding people. They collectivized industry and focused on repairing the tram system and improving the infrastructure.

...My first visit was to the tramway section of the transport industry in Barcelona. Before July, 1936, the wages for workers there averaged 260 pesetas per month, 270 pesetas for the skilled, the workers being divided into sixteen arbitrary categories. Technicians obtained 800 to 1,000 pesetas. (The peseta is now stabilized at 12 to the dollar in Spain, although in France one may get 40). The company itself was in the hands of first-class plunderers. The two chief heads drew 1,000 pesetas a day for each of the three divisions of the company (subway, tramway and autobus) and besides drew 30% of all the money taken in. Nine members of the Board of Directors got 6,000 pesetas a month for attending one meeting. In 1929 the bank of Catalonia bought over the tramway division from its former Belgian owners for 35 million pesetas; in 1936 it was capitalized at 180 million. Now all this capital has been seized, the exploiters have precipitously fled the country and the workers are in control. The new concern still pays municipal taxes. Under private hands the company used to pay only 700,000 pesetas in taxes; the collective has voluntarily raised its quota to 1,500,000.

A similar story can be told, by the way, concerning the subway of Barcelona. Before the workers took it over the annual deficit was 260,000 pesetas. Now, not only has the entire deficit been rubbed out but 600,000 pesetas profit in ten months has been recorded, in spite of the fact that many more workmen are employed, and over two million pesetas have been spent for new cars in the abnormal conditions of war and revolution.

Once the workers took over the tramway business, the union raised the pay of the employees to 400. p. a month for unskilled, 450 p. for skilled and office workers, 500p.-600p. for technicians and 1,200p. for the two engineers. The work-week became one of eight hours daily, six days a week. Six hundred more workers are employed now than before July. Of the 3,600 members in the union, 432 are retired workers drawing pensions of 270 p. a month. Those permanently sick draw 250 p. monthly, those temporarily ill get full pay. About 250-300 members are at the front and their jobs are being saved for them by others who do their work; many of the men refuse their one day off during the week so as to release others for the fight...

Please read the rest as the amount ATS will allow me to quote is not enough to make the point...
www.weisbord.org...

So because other countries fail at providing for their out of control populations we should down size our living standards and dump our resources into their bottomless pit of humanity? Somewhere I don't think we signed up to provide room and board for 6 billion people.

Nope. What gives you that idea? Did you read the rest of the quote on Spain? Does that sound anything like what you are suggesting? It's not about other people, it's about you and me. Our standard of living will go up.

But with all that said my desire to get ahead in life to provide a nice living for me and my kids is not a bad course to follow.

But it could be much better if you actually look at what I'm saying instead of putting all this pre-conceived negativity on anything that shakes your conditioned nationalism.

The only people who will not be better off are the capitalists who will, poor dears, have to start sharing the 'profit' with those who actually produce the profits, you, me and the rest of those that work for a living. We already run everything, capitalists make their money from our labour not their own.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

And it turned out so well, didn't it?

Which was not the fault of the people was it, have you been following along?

They were also at war with the fascists, Germany (Hitler) and Italy (Mussolini), that resulted in the fascist dictator Franco and WWII.
They were bombed constantly by the Luftwaffe.

The people were squashed by TPTB that everyone bitches about, the capitalists of the time, who wanted a fascist system, but the workers were getting too powerful and taking things into their (our) own hands.

They are us, we are them. We could have had liberty but WWII ended that, and then in the 50's re-education of the population started, with state schools and media, and the working classes lost their political power and any notions of worker control. Now everything is backwards, capitalism is freedom, and socialism is whatever but nothing ever positive.

It's a complete deception to keep the masses under control and in their places.

xtrozero, no, i said "capitalism HERE", which, yes, is corporatism. Socialism does not need to fail, because it can combine with democracy just fine....in fact you NEED true democracy to HAVE true socialism. And i doubt its been "proven" that socialism cant work on a large scale, any more than its been "proven" that no government system will work, because in the end they all collapse or change. Each can be deduced from looking at history, but each is a fallacy. Yes, indeed, a welfare country in the US under total control of the current regime would be scary indeed....which is why it calls for large changes in the system. Campaign reform, lobbyist reform, etc. At any rate, you talk of the horrors we would have in a socialist system.....Right now we are under total control of the corporations...and guess what? Real economic growth IS going backwards. Financial and medical are the only real sectors for growth in the US, because due to our system, we no longer are a manufacturing base. Most of the money in this country is made not by production, but by clever manipulation of finance.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by pexx421]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

And it turned out so well, didn't it?

Which was not the fault of the people was it, have you been following along?

They were also at war with the fascists, Germany (Hitler) and Italy (Mussolini), that resulted in the fascist dictator Franco and WWII.
They were bombed constantly by the Luftwaffe.

The people were squashed by TPTB that everyone bitches about, the capitalists of the time, who wanted a fascist system, but the workers were getting too powerful and taking things into their (our) own hands.

They are us, we are them. We could have had liberty but WWII ended that, and then in the 50's re-education of the population started, with state schools and media, and the working classes lost their political power and any notions of worker control. Now everything is backwards, capitalism is freedom, and socialism is whatever but nothing ever positive.

It's a complete deception to keep the masses under control and in their places.

They were also fighting with the communists and republicans on their own side.

The positive parts of socialism eventually evolved into Social Democracy, which is basically the idea that gradual reform of the capitalist system will lead to socialism as people become more and more open to socialist ideas whilst emphasising reform over revolution (because revolution must always be violent or oppressive in some way).

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
How old is the poster of this thread?



I work 6 days a week, get up at 5am and have been doing this for 26 years. Likewise my husband. I have raised 3 children. I have owned a beautiful home, live on a lake.
I grew up in Detroit during the riots. i am white. (Just in case you were wondering) We were dirt poor. My mother worked everyday very hard, as a waitress because as a teenager she made a stupid decision and became pregnant for me, and was not allowed to finish high school. She had to go to work to support me. She had no one to help her in any way. We had no health insurance, I had asthma.
I was fortunate that a private school allowed me to attend without paying.
I know what it is to suffer, and experience being hated for my color, and as a result cannot stand to see others suffering through no fault of their own, because of their color, or pay their whole life for one bad decision as a teenager.

You have not read the posts or just read a portion, because I said in the original post "The people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments."



.

reply to post by Xtrozero


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.cracked.com




"Pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

Huh, that sounds like the child tax credit created under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, signed by. . .

"It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

An entitlement paying old people to support them for not working? That sounds like Social Security, passed by...

"There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it." Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice.

It almost sounds like he's about to say we should all share in the wealth or something.

"Create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property." Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice.